The Next Thing

[PhilG007]

AMEN!!!

 

Earlier this year, my favorite partner and I played against a young pair in a regional 2nd bracket KO semi-final. They played some variation of a strong club system with 2 level bids showing strong majors hands. They provided pre-alert materials to explain what they played. They appeared nervous. I'd bet it was their first time in a semi-final. My partner and I recorded several solid results and the pressure mounted. Then the wheels came off when they had trouble finding the right bids according to their system. I think this is a good example of the importance of being completely comfortable with what you play under any conditions.

 

OTOH, my local partner, who has had several strokes, and I play a very simplified card far simpler than SAYC. There are certainly times when those who have more tools have an advantage. Yet, we win more than our share of masterpoints at club games and tournaments including a couple 2nd overall finishes in recent years at Chicago summer regional A/AX (Unlimited/0-3000 MP) Open Pair events.

 

In the end, it's developing good judgment and card playing skills that make you a winner.

 

Certainly, it's OK to add tools if you can use them effectively in any situation. But, ultimately, you want to be comfortable with what you play so that your judgment and skill can come to the fore.

Thank you for vindicating my previous posting It just serves to prove that it is

only a cripple that needs crutches(!) :)

[Zelandakh]

Thank you for vindicating my previous posting It just serves to prove that it is only a cripple that needs crutches(!) :)

I am sure Justin will pass your advise on to Meckwell. They might become a half-decent pair if they were just willing to take those crutches off.

[helene_t]

Lebensohl may seem the obvious choice but imo drury is what you probably miss most frequently and it is simpler. Just don't forget to agree that it is off after interference and that it doesn't apply after 1d.

[ArtK78]

I would have 2 priorities:

 

1. Improve your defensive carding agreements. I adopted UDCA in the mid 1970's, and I have NEVER regretted it. After a short period of adjustment, it will become second nature, and you will wonder why you ever played anything else. I also play odd/even first discards, and I strongly recommend them, but odd/even first discards are far less important than UDCA.

 

2. XYZ. I have been playing XYZ for about 2 months now, and I wonder why it took me so long to adopt it. It is so superior to any form of checkback that it is surprising that more players have not adopted it. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

[barmar]

Lebensohl may seem the obvious choice but imo drury is what you probably miss most frequently and it is simpler. Just don't forget to agree that it is off after interference and that it doesn't apply after 1d.

It's always fun to hear a player who has just recently learned 2/1 announce "forcing" when their partner responds 1NT to a minor. :)

[fromageGB]

I am :)

That's a relief. I was getting worried.

[fromageGB]

If you are looking for a system thing rather than the essential carding agreements, then you should go for something with as high a frequency as possible. Then it will be happening so frequently that it will be driven in, and the benefits will be felt more often. I'd suggest transfer responses to 1♣. You are already playing a strong NT, and you play transfers over that. Considering that the same hand a bit weaker opens 1C, and occurs much more frequently, play transfers. It's great fun, as well as being beneficial.

[Vampyr]

I would have 2 priorities:

 

1. Improve your defensive carding agreements. I adopted UDCA in the mid 1970's, and I have NEVER regretted it. After a short period of adjustment, it will become second nature, and you will wonder why you ever played anything else. I also play odd/even first discards, and I strongly recommend them, but odd/even first discards are far less important than UDCA.

 

2. XYZ. I have been playing XYZ for about 2 months now, and I wonder why it took me so long to adopt it. It is so superior to any form of checkback that it is surprising that more players have not adopted it. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

 

if you are going to play odd/even discards, be sure to discuss the correct card from lots of holdings. This system was only relatively recently permitted in the EBU because of tempo issues.

 

To Art: I don't play xyz, and have just looked up what I assume is a popular way to play it. It seems that you lose: 1. The ability for responder to make an immediate invitational suit bid (yes, I guess you can show this hand, but the auction could get murky ie wrt length, and/or interference makes it impossible t show the hand-type. It seems to me that you can better afford to stay lower with the GF hands. 2. The ability for responder to show a preference for clubs without climbing to the 3-level. Could you explain the advantages compared to 2-way checkback plus 4th suit GF?

[Jinksy]

Lebensohl may seem the obvious choice but imo drury is what you probably miss most frequently and it is simpler. Just don't forget to agree whetherthat it is off after interference and that it doesn't apply after 1d.

 

FYP :P

[Phil]

Lebensohl is good to learn not only because it's useful but also because you learn about the concept of slowing the auction down.

[aguahombre]

Is it more useful than the natural bid it replaces. (frequency of occurrence comes into this)

This is complicated. We believe that infrequent situations still must have a solution, and we first find a place to fit the replaced sequence before replacing it with a toy.

 

Also, when considering the addition of a tool, we ask if the hole we are filling can be filled in a different way. For example: by adjusting the choice of Minor to open with (say) 4-4 and a balanced hand -- coupled with rebidding 1♠ over a 1♥ response instead of 1nt --- virtually eliminates the need for 2-way checkback, allows us to find our 4-4 spade fit even if Responder is weak, improves the efficiency of the NMF continuations, and maintains the ability to get out in 2♣. The trade-off that we don't immediately guarantee an unbalanced hand when we rebid 1♠ has not presented a problem for us.

[PhilG007]

I am sure Justin will pass your advise on to Meckwell. They might become a half-decent pair if they were just willing to take those crutches off.

I'm wondering how many pages THEIR convention card covers ;)

[ArtK78]

if you are going to play odd/even discards, be sure to discuss the correct card from lots of holdings. This system was only relatively recently permitted in the EBU because of tempo issues.

 

To Art: I don't play xyz, and have just looked up what I assume is a popular way to play it. It seems that you lose: 1. The ability for responder to make an immediate invitational suit bid (yes, I guess you can show this hand, but the auction could get murky ie wrt length, and/or interference makes it impossible t show the hand-type. It seems to me that you can better afford to stay lower with the GF hands. 2. The ability for responder to show a preference for clubs without climbing to the 3-level. Could you explain the advantages compared to 2-way checkback plus 4th suit GF?

 

 

XYZ allows you to make invitational calls without having to get to the three level. It also allows you to create a game forcing and game invitational situation without any ambiguities. I have played bridge for over 40 years. I still have issues with checkback sequences and 4th suit forcing sequences. XYZ eliminates the ambiguities.

 

 

After any sequence that starts with three bids at the one level (1x-1y-1z), 2C and 2D are artificial. 2C is a transfer to 2D, and is either:

 

(1) Any hand with invitational values; or

 

(2) A weak hand with diamonds.

 

 

Obviously, in the case of the weak hand with diamonds, responder intends to pass the transfer. So opener, if he cannot stand to be passed in 2D, has to make some other call. That part is very self explanatory. Note that this method allows you to get out in 2D even if neither partner bid diamonds previously.

 

In the normal situation, opener completes the transfer, and responder makes some other natural call, and is guaranteeing invitational to game values. Opener is usually in a position to place the contract. This works great in many sequences as you can stay lower than the field. For example:

 

1C - 1S; 1NT - 2C*; 2D - 2S

 

Responder has an invitational hand with long spades. Opener can pass. In most systems, responder would have bid 3S over 1NT. If responder had less than invitational values with long spades, he would have bid 2S over 1NT.

 

1C - 1H; 1S - 2C*; 2D - 2S

 

Again, responder has an invitational hand - this time with a fit for partner's spades. Rather than bid 3S, as in most systems, he bids 2C followed by 2S. If opener does not have a game bid, he can pass, and the final contract is 2S instead of 3S. If responder had less than invitational values, he could have bid 2S over 1S without fear that opener will take him for any serious values.

 

I could provide other examples.

 

 

A 2D bid after three bids at the one level is artificial and game forcing. Subsequent bidding is natural. Game must be reached.

 

 

JUMPS by responder after 1x-1y-1z are natural and forcing.

 

 

The 2C game invitational call and the 2D game forcing call free up responder's second round jump for some specialized uses. A jump by responder after three bids at the one level is game forcing and natural. If he is jumping in his own suit, it sets trump and begins cue bids. These jumps are slam oriented hands. With hands with no slam interest, or, in the case of a rebid of responder's own suit, a suit that is not good enough to insist on it being the trump suit, responder bids 2D first to create a game force. As some have commented, this is the aspect of XYZ that is the hardest for those new to XYZ to get used to. Players are used to a second round jump as invitational. In XYZ, it is forcing and strongly suggests slam. This is true if the jump is a rebid of responder's suit, a jump raise of either of opener's suits, or even a new suit.

 

Establishing a game force and showing interest in slam at a low level is very useful. It allows the partnership to explore for slam without getting past the game level. If the partnership has other slam methods, such as serious and non-serious NT or cue bids, it meshes well with XYZ.

 

 

1x-1y-1z-2NT

 

 

To invite in NT, one bids 2C followed by 2NT. A direct 2NT bid as responder's second call without bidding 2C first is a transfer to 3C, which, in traditional XYZ, is always a weak hand with long clubs. However, one can add other things to cover special situations. In my main partnership, a 2NT rebid by responder (forcing 3C) followed by a suit bid at the 3 level shows a game forcing 4441 with shortness in the bid suit (a rebid of responder's first suit shows club shortness). If responder bids 2NT followed by 3NT he has a strong NT opening hand.

 

 

Other bids

 

 

Any reverse after 1x-1y-1z is natural and game forcing. For example, 1C - 1D; 1S - 2H is natural and forcing to game, showing 5+ diamonds and 4+ hearts.

 

I was just discussing with my partner the meaning of 1C - 1D; 1H - 1S. Since responder could have bid 2C or 2D to show invitational or game forcing hands, 1S should have a special meaning not covered by 2C and 2D. The meaning that we have agreed to is essentially a catchall bid - a hand where no other bid is appropriate. For example:

 

xx xxx KQTxx Kxx

 

Responder cannot bid 1NT with a doubleton small spade, he can't raise hearts or clubs, he doesn't have an invitational hand or a game forcing hand, nor does he want to force the bidding to drop in 2D. Passing 1H is a possibility with this hand, but it is far from desirable (and I could change the example so that it is 2-2-5-4). So 1S covers this situation. The 1S bid is forcing one round. Among other things, this allows opener to rebid 1NT to play.

 

Some standard partnerships use 1C -1D; 1H - 2S as fourth-suit forcing. This is incredibly awkward. That problem does not exist using XYZ. 2S is natural and forcing to game, showing 5-x-6-y. With a game forcing hand and only 4 spades, responder would bid 2D. And if responder had only game invitational strength, he would bid 2C. The rest of the bidding would be natural.

 

I could provide you with a printout outlining the XYZ methods that I play. The way that I play XYZ is not the only way to play it. There are variations. But all of them have one thing in common - the meaning of the 2C and 2D bids after three bids at the one level.

[blackshoe]

Takeout doubles? :D

[Vampyr]

Thanks.

[PhilG007]

I am sure Justin will pass your advise on to Meckwell. They might become a half-decent pair if they were just willing to take those crutches off.

[/quote

I would dearly love to see "Meckwell" take on our BBO GIBS in a head to head. But I doubt they would be willing

to risk their prestige against the chance they would suffer the same fate as Garry Kasparov did against super computer "Deep Blue"

in 2008 (!) In his excellent book,"Right Through The Pack Again"(2008) a sequel to the classic work, Ron Klinger has his heroic

human champion player 'The Old Master' going head to head in a Bermuda Bowl Final against 5 times World Bridge Computer Champion

Highest Expert Level Player (H.E.L.P.) I found the deals and the text fascinating to read. :)

[Zelandakh]

Gary Kasparov was also unwilling to "risk his prestige" against the original Chessmaster. The comparative level of GIB is arguably lower than CM1 at the current time. The result of such a challenge would probably not be much closer than if you were to take on Meckwell. Have GIBs beating the advanced players before moving on to world champions. :lol:

[gwnn]

I agree with the general feeling, 4xGIB would lose badly against any decent opposition, no need to hire Meckwell. I do wonder however how much GIB could be improved by just allotting more computer power. Of course its bidding and strict confidence in opposition bidding will not be solved and the match would still be very much one-sided. But would its cardplay significantly improve if we gave it (say) 32 dedicated cores and more time to think?

[sfi]

I'm surprised by the vote for Lebensohl over some sort of checkback. Without New Minor Forcing or similar, there are an entire group of hands you can't show over a 1NT rebid.

 

Which flavour of checkback is much less important than having one is much less important though.

[helene_t]

I don't think checkback should be such a high priority. Most hands can be dealt with using either a natural invite, a (fake) jump shift or a fake reverse, or they would have made a jump shift in the first place. Meanwhile, the loss of a natural nonforcing 2♣ bid is, while not a big deal, not dismissable either.

 

I wonder, since you don't currently play Drury, if you have a firm understanding of the forcing character of

pass-1M

2m

 

Some people assume Acol (whatever that means), other assume SAYC (whatever that means). If you do have a firm understanding of this then I will withdraw my vote for Drury, but otherwise you need to discuss it and then I think introducing Drury is just as simple while significantly better.

 

Something else: Maybe Landy should be on the list? If you play in a weak nt field you will face lots of enemy 1NT openings.

[nige1]

Thank you for vindicating my previous posting It just serves to prove that it isonly a cripple that needs crutches(!)

Terence Reese derided 4SF as "that pitiful crutch" :) For a regular partnership, however, conventions can be effective and fun.

 

Excellent complete modern system-cards are easily available. Hence you don't need to re-invent the wheel. Although you might simplify some of them. Consistency reduces memory strain. e.g. "System-on" when no-trump is the 1st natural bid by the partnership. It's also easier to remember frequently used conventions e.g. Carding and competitive methods. Some constructive conventions also qualify e.g Gazzilli and XYZ.

 

You can practice your bidding conventions at a BBO bidding-table, using appropriate dealer-scripts.

[PhilG007]

Gary Kasparov was also unwilling to "risk his prestige" against the original Chessmaster. The comparative level of GIB is arguably lower than CM1 at the current time. The result of such a challenge would probably not be much closer than if you were to take on Meckwell. Have GIBs beating the advanced players before moving on to world champions. :lol:

I find that surprising. "Deep Blue" was a far stronger computer than Chessmaster yet Kasparov accepted the

challenge to play a match against it.The makers of"Deep Blue" were also very confident as they put a big wager on the outcome of the match. They must have been cock a hoop at the final result. I think that Kasparov seriously underestimated his cybernetic opponent

and got punished for it.

[PhilG007]

Terence Reese derided 4SF as "that pitiful crutch" :) For a regular partnership, however, conventions can be effective and fun.

 

Excellent complete modern system-cards are easily available. Hence you don't need to re-invent the wheel. Although you might simplify some of them. Consistency reduces memory strain. e.g. "System-on" when no-trump is the 1st natural bid by the partnership. It's also easier to remember frequently used conventions e.g. Carding and competitive methods. Some constructive conventions also qualify e.g Gazzilli and XYZ.

 

You can practice your bidding conventions at a BBO bidding-table, using appropriate dealer-scripts.

Reese also derided the weak 2 but as he was an Acolite that was no surprise. Yet the weak two has proven to be

an effective weapon.

[Zelandakh]

I find that surprising. "Deep Blue" was a far stronger computer than Chessmaster yet Kasparov accepted the

challenge to play a match against it. I think that Kasparov seriously underestimated his cybernetic opponent

and got punished for it.

Then you should go back and look at the source material. Kasparov was heavily involved in improving chess computers and instrumental in bringing about the advances that allowed them to compete successfully at GM level. He accepted the challenge against Deep Blue precisely because it was a worthy opponent. Yes, he probably did think he would still win the match but I am quite sure that he did not underestimate the scale of the challenge.

 

CM1 would not have been a worthy opponent for him. It would have been a waste of time to play such a match. That is the case for Meckwell regarding GIB at the present time. It may well be that bridge computers advance in the coming years to the point where such a match would be useful and worthwhile. But if you put the lack of such a match down to fear then you are delusional sadly mistaken.

[Zelandakh]

Reese also derided the weak 2 but as he was an Acolite that was no surprise. Yet the weak two has proven to be

an effective weapon.

Do you have a reference for that? I know Reese would deride weaker players misusing weak two openings but as far as I know he had nothing against them when used correctly (we can argue about what "correctly" ought to mean).